I read your posts as picking on AST. That's also why I believe AST (and the college/university) are the ones who should be concerned with all of this. That's also why I believe GLOers should be concerned with their own GLO's policies.

I would find it hilarious if a non-Delta wanted to go back and forth with me about Delta's policies and procedures regarding alcohol or anything else for that matter. It would be in that person's best interest to make a general point instead of choosing a specific GLO and its policies.

I'm not at all. If Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Tri Delta had a similarly ambiguous post and it was on GC for all to see and disect on the internet, I'd do the same thing. They just happen to be the ones whose sister posted it here.

And I'm not going "back and forth" - they can make whatever policy they want. I'm just stating that this particular one is written in a way I find ambiguous, the same way we talk about how this or that news article or bulletin from whoever's HQ is well done or poorly done.

And I'd think you were picking on them and needed to mind your own GLO's business. LOL.

I tend to agree, although this can be one of those areas where GLOs look to other organization's policies for examples.

Without getting specific as to any particular policy, there is a legal principal that a statute or regulation that imposes penalties on a person ought to be sufficiently specific that a reasonable person can understand what is prohibited and what it not. Otherwise, the statute or regulation might be struck down as "void for vagueness."

What I hear 33girl saying is that GLO policies about alcohol should follow that principle and be specific enough that just by reading them and without explanation or interpretation, a member can tell what is prohibited and what isn't. For my money, that's in everyone's best interests -- the members and the GLO.

Again, that general point can be made as a general point. GLOs have risk management and policy people. Challenging specific GLOs' policies and procedures operates under the assumption that those GLOs don't have people working on this in coalition with colleges and universities; and that "you" know something that these specific GLOs are missing.

Like I said before, you have to be specific without being too specific. I don't think that any organization/institution/government has policies that are detailed in the way that you explain, because to create such policies would leave room for someone to say, "But you didn't include THIS, so it's ok for me to get away with it.." As you mentioned, hazing policies can be the same way, but to attempt to list every single thing that can be considered hazing, something will be missed, and someone will claim that they can do it, because nowhere in the policy did it explicitly state that they couldn't participate in that exact activity.

Well then I clearly don't understand my own organization's policies. Please explain it to me.

As with any policy such as this, I'm sure it's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If I'm sitting in Applebee's as a 55-year-old alumna, having a glass of wine after work, and I'm wearing my badge, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem, and it wouldn't draw any attention (even if someone across the bar, that I didn't know, was wasted and acting like a jackass). If, however, I just turned 21 and I showed up to Applebee's in a lettered shirt, and I'm pounding drink after drink, slurring my words, stumbling to the bathroom, and starting fights with the people next to me, I would hope that another sister would at least say something to me about it. And if I was brought in front of Tau Honor Council because of it, I deserved it.

And we all hope that our sisters/brothers are reasonable (and not vengeful) people. Is that ALWAYS the case. Probably Not. Unfortunately.

in·sig·ni·a (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifn-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifghttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif) also in·sig·ne (-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. insignia or in·sig·ni·as 1. A badge of office, rank, membership, or nationality; an emblem.
2. A distinguishing sign.


A distinguishing sign of membership would include letters of any kind. The only part that I find to be slightly ambiguous would be the 'location where alcohol is being abused' part... but again, we all hope that our members aren't "out to get us."

Basically, if this policy was such an issue and there were so many questions and concerns about it, I'm sure it would be changed at the upcoming Convention in order to make it more specific. As with many policies, until an issue arises or a loophole is found, it continues to read the same and serves its purpose.

Government policies are, or should be, written that way. It's not necessarily a matter of listing every possible way that the policy can be violated. It's a matter of being sufficiently specific as to what is prohibited.


At the risk of drawing a (probably well-deserved) rebuke from Dr. Phil, I'll put this as a question: Why would this not violate your policy, which says (per your quote) that the sorority "prohibits . . . alumnae from . . . being in a location where alcohol is abused while wearing . . . insignia . . . ."?

That's not what's meant by reasonable It's not an assumption/hope that a rule will be applied reasonably (although we do, of course, hope that); it's that a regulation should be written in such a way that a hypothetical person of reasonable intelligence would understand what is and what is not prohibited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2040322) At the risk of drawing a (probably well-deserved) rebuke from Dr. Phil, I'll put this as a question: Why would this not violate your policy, which says (per your quote) that the sorority "prohibits . . . alumnae from . . . being in a location where alcohol is abused while wearing . . . insignia . . . ."?

I now feel like we’re splitting hairs. And if this is a violation of our national policy, then my entire chapter, along with our District President (who is now the Director of Collegiate Chapters) broke this rule. We all went out to eat at Applebee’s during a “closed weekend,” for lunch… I mean, come on… at what point do you draw the line?

Ok, new scenario… I’m still the 55-year-old wearing my badge… except I’m not drinking this time. Instead, I went to the mall after work to pick something up. I stopped in the food court to eat, and there were a bunch of teenagers next to me who were drinking out of water bottles that clearly contained something other than water. They were loud, obnoxious, slurring their words, and were clearly drunk. Would I have to leave/take off my badge?

Could someone still put up a fuss and say, “Nope, sorry.. violates national policy”..? Sure. Which brings me to…

Quote:

That's not what's meant by reasonable It's not an assumption/hope that a rule will be applied reasonably (although we do, of course, hope that); it's that a regulation should be written in such a way that a hypothetical person of reasonable intelligence would understand what is and what is not prohibited.

I understand the "reasonable intelligence" aspect of it. I just don't think I worded it well.

My point is, people find their way around rules/laws every day. It happens. And when it does, rules are changed. It’s why we have National Conventions every 2-3 years… to review our constitutions and make amendments. It’s why there are amendments to the Constitution of the United States… and numerous other documents I won’t mention here. Times change, people change, rules change. What might be reasonable/understood/relevant today, might not apply tomorrow. That’s all I’m saying. And again…

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2040291) Basically, if this policy was such an issue and there were so many questions and concerns about it, I'm sure it would be changed at the upcoming Convention in order to make it more specific. As with many policies, until an issue arises or a loophole is found, it continues to read the same and serves its purpose.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Where does a group draw the line?

To be fair, I don't think I was splitting hairs at all. It seems to me that the plain language of the policy you quoted says that insignia are not to be worn by any member, collegiate or alumnae, "in a location where alcohol is abused." Period, with no qualifications. You described a hypothetical where you are wearing your badge in a location (Applebee's) where alcohol is being abused ("someone across the bar, that I didn't know, was wasted and acting like a jackass").

I'm not questioning whether what you describe would be acceptable to your organization, nor am I suggesting that you, your entire chapter or your district president have been scofflaws. I'm just trying to fit it with the plain language of the policy you shared.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the example you gave proves 33girl's point.

;)

Again, as I've said:

If it has continued to work for the organization, and all members are of "reasonable intelligence" when it comes to this policy, and they know what is appropriate and what isn't, then I say it's doing its job.

And if a chapter doesn't follow this rule at all (as 33girl girl said has happened), and is blatantly breaking every aspect of it, then it would appear as though they have chosen not to follow this in the least, or they are not aware of the policy. It happens... not all chapters of all organizations know about/follow all of the rules all of the time. And I hope that if this particular chapter was discovered to be so obviously breaking this rule, that the national organization would take action.

The fact is, anyone can get drunk anywhere... regardless of whether or not alcohol is being served. To restrict the wearing of letters in that regard would be say that letters can never be worn anywhere.

So until an AST of a higher power comes knocking down my door, I will continue to live out this policy the way that I have! :p

By the way... the word "scofflaw" always makes me think of that one Seinfeld episode where Newman avoids the cop and getting/paying parking tickets...

:D

It's a great word, isn't it? :D

Please understand, I'm not trying to attack or criticise you or AST. You just provided a handy example of what I'd wager can be found in most any organization -- Greek or otherwise. I know I've seen it in organizations I belong to: The words of a rule a rule or policy say one thing, but the practical day-to-day interpretation and application of it differs in some way. What (we hope) keeps it from being a problem is that people are generally more aware of the interpretation/traditional application of the rule than they are of the actual words themselves, or at worst, there is a general understanding that "yes, we know the rule says this way, but what it really means is that way." I guess it's a professional hazard for me that when I've seen instances of this, my reaction is to suggest that we change the wording of the rule so that the wording is consistent with the actual application. Otherwise, I think what we're really doing is operating with two rules: a de jure rule that we ignore and a de facto rule that we follow.

I didn't necessarily mean sisters only, since the policy is apparently widely available online, although it could apply to them as well.

I completely understand where you're coming from. And the problems lie in what we've both stated.

The "hope" (and I hate using that word) is that the intention of our members is not to try and work around such policies and bend the rules, but instead, is to use a good level of judgment when dealing with such situations.

Very true.